Creosote Retention

United States In cooperation

Department of with the
Agriculture

Levels of Timber
United States
Forest Service Department of
Transportation
Forest
Products
Laboratory
Federal
Highway
Administration
Highway Bridge
Superstructures
National Wood in
Transportation
Information

in Michigan’s
Center

Research
Note
FPL–RN–0289
Lower Peninsula
James P. Wacker
Douglas M. Crawford
Merv O. Eriksson
Abstract
Environmental concerns about preservative bleeding (or
migrating) from timber bridges have increased in recent
years. This preliminary study examined the creosote reten-
tion levels at six timber highway bridges in Michigan’s
lower peninsula during the summer of 2000. Several test
core samples were removed from the bridge superstructures
(four bleeders and two controls) and were evaluated for
creosote content in the laboratory. Results from three of the
four bleeder bridges indicated high creosote retention levels
between 36 and 52 lb/ft3 (576.7 and 833 kg/m3) after several
years in service.
Keywords: timber, highway, bridge, red pine, creosote,
retention, bleeding
August 2003
Wacker, James P.; Crawford, Douglas M.; Eriksson, Merv O. 2003.
Creosote retention levels of timber highway bridge superstructures in
Michigan’s lower peninsula. Res. Note FPL-RN-0289. Madison, WI:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory.
17 p.
A limited number of free copies of this publication are available to the
public from the Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive,
Madison, WI 53726–2398. This publication is also available online at
www.fpl.fs.fed.us. Laboratory publications are sent to hundreds
of libraries in the United States and elsewhere.
The Forest Products Laboratory is maintained in cooperation with the
University of Wisconsin.
The use of trade or firm names is for information only and does not imply
endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or
service.
This publication reports research involving pesticides. It dose not contain
recommendations for their use, nor does it imply that the uses discussed here
have been registered. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropri-
ate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended.
Caution: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable
plants, and fish or other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied prop-
erly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended
practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimina-
tion in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or
marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication
of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact
the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,
Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Wash-
ington, DC 20250–9410, or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is
an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Acknowledgments
The authors extend appreciation to the following people for
their valuable contributions to this project: Dan Sikarskie
and Roger Rasmussen (retired) of the Huron Pines Resource
Conservation and Development Council (Grayling, Michi-
gan) for coordination of fieldwork and assistance with gath-
ering initial treatment process information; Dan Foster and
Stan Lebow of the USDA Forest Service, Forest Products
Laboratory, for technical assistance with fieldwork and
laboratory analysis procedures; and Carlito Calil, Jr., of the
University of Sao Paulo at Sao Carlos (Brazil) for assistance
with fieldwork. We also acknowledge the assistance of the
following organizations for permitting access to their bridges
and providing background treatment documents for this
study: Missaukee County Road Commission, Alcona County
Road Commission, Crawford County Road Commission,
Otsego County Road Commission, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service—Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge.
Contents
Page
Introduction........................................................................... 1
Background........................................................................... 1
Highway Bridge Applications........................................... 1
Potential Environmental Effects of Preservatives............. 2
Creosote Treatment Industry Standards and Guidelines ... 2
Creosote Preservative........................................................ 2
Objective and Scope ............................................................. 2
Methods ................................................................................ 3
Laboratory Methods.......................................................... 3
Review of Available Treatment Information .................... 3
Results and Discussion ......................................................... 4
Visual Inspections............................................................. 4
Moisture Content .............................................................. 4
Core Sampling for Creosote Retention ............................. 6
Review of Available Treatment Information .................... 8
Summary and Recommendations.......................................... 8
Literature Cited ..................................................................... 9
Appendix............................................................................. 11
La Chance Bridge Inspection Report .............................. 11
Cruzen Bridge Inspection Report.................................... 11
Cameron Bridge Inspection Report................................. 11
Houlihan Bridge Inspection Report ................................ 11
Barlow Bridge Inspection Report ................................... 12
Old Vanderbilt Bridge Inspection Report ....................... 12
Creosote Retention Levels of Timber
Highway Bridge Superstructures in
Michigan’s Lower Peninsula
James P. Wacker, General Engineer
Douglas M. Crawford, Forest Products Technologist
Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin
Merv O. Eriksson, Regional Bridge Engineer
Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Portland, Oregon
(formerly Technical Coordinator, USDA Forest Service, Wood In Transportation Program)
Introduction
Creosote has been used as a wood preservative for nearly
200 years. The use of creosote as a wood preservative in the
United States began around 1870 when a pressure-treatment
plant was constructed in Pascagoula, Mississippi, to produce
railroad ties (Webb 1976). By the 1920s, creosote was the
treatment of choice for the railroad industry and continues to
be so today (Gjovik and others 1980). In the United States,
approximately 15% of the total volume of wood treated with
preservatives is treated with creosote (AWPA 1997). Creo-
sote is used extensively within the United States for treat-
ment of construction timbers, poles, and posts.
For highway bridges, creosote has been widely used since
the 1940s. However, one problem associated with the use of
creosote preservatives is the tendency to exude, or “bleed,”
from some treated products, producing an oily or tar-covered
surface “crud” that can cause handling problems and has
increased public concern about effects on the environment
(Crawford and others 2000). In the past decade, rising con-
cerns about bleeding of preservatives from highway bridges,
and the potential effects on the environment, have resulted in
preservative bans by some state environmental protection
agencies. Recent efforts in the State of Michigan have re-
sulted in revisions to Department of Transportation specifi-
cations for treated timber highway bridges and development
of best management practices (Pilon 2002).
The Michigan Timber Bridge Committee (Michigan DNR
1995) contacted the USDA Forest Service, National Wood
In Transportation Information Center (NWITIC), to report
complaints regarding excessive creosote bleeding at bridge
sites that were partially funded through the Wood In Trans-
portation (WIT) program administered by the USDA Forest
Service. NWITIC contacted the USDA Forest Service,
Forest Products Laboratory (FPL), for technical assistance
due to its ongoing field monitoring research activities cover-
ing timber highway bridges and wood preservatives. This
report, a cooperative effort between the Michigan Timber
Bridge Committee, NWITIC, and FPL, summarizes the
findings of a preliminary study to assess the in-service
creosote retention levels of several timber highway bridge
superstructures at various locations in Michigan’s lower
peninsula.
Background
Previous research to study field bridges and other exposed
treated wood structures for preservative retention is limited.
However, a cursory review of technical publications related
to creosote-treated highway bridges is presented.
Highway Bridge Applications
A thorough description of wood preservatives and how they
are typically used for highway bridges and structures is
given in Ritter (1992). Included are specific recommenda-
tions for using creosote with sawn lumber and glulam mate-
rials, along with suggestions for improving the cleanliness of
oil-type preservatives in service.
As part of its National Bridge Monitoring Program, FPL has
evaluated several creosote-treated highway bridges in the
past 13 years (Hislop 1998; Hislop and Ritter 1996; Kainz
1998; Kainz and others 1996, 2001; Lee and others 1997;
Ritter and others 1995a, 1996a,b; Wacker and Ritter 1995;
Wacker and others 1997, 1998a,b). These field studies pri-
marily concentrated on structural performance characteristics
of the bridges. During the monitoring, condition assessments
included intensive visual inspections of the preservative-
treated wood components, but no core sampling was done.
Potential Environmental
Effects of Preservatives
Webb (1976) reviewed research studies that show how the
aquatic environment is affected by the presence of creosote-
treated piles and bulkheads. Included were studies to meas-
ure water quality and toxicity to birds and fish.
Webb and Gjovik (1988) include a review of information
concerning treated wood products and a cursory review of
literature pertaining to potential preservative exposure to the
environment and its effect on human health.
Brooks (2000) investigated six different bridge sites treated
with chromated copper arsenate (CCA), creosote, and penta-
chlorophenol (Penta) to measure the concentration of these
preservatives lost to adjacent environments and the biologi-
cal response to these preservatives.
The Forest Products Laboratory (2000) investigated a wet-
land boardwalk treated with several different waterborne
preservatives to measure the amount of preservative leaching
into the environment and any effect on the aquatic plant and
animal life.
Lebow and Tippie (2001) prepared a guide for minimizing
the effect of preservative-treated wood in sensitive environ-
ments. This guide provides procedures and techniques to
prevent in-service bleeding problems.
Creosote Treatment Industry Standards
and Guidelines
The American Wood Preservers’ Association (AWPA)
develops and maintains industry standards for various wood
preservatives used to treat wood products.
• AWPA standard P1/P13 (AWPA 1995) is the standard for
creosote preservative used in land, fresh water, and marine
(coastal water) applications.
• AWPA standard C14 (AWPA 1999a) covers wood used in
highway construction projects, such as bridges.
• AWPA standard C28 (AWPA 1999b) covers preservative
treatment of structural glued-laminated timber (glulam)
members.
• AWPA standard M20 presents guidelines for minimizing
oil-type preservative migration, or preservative bleeding
problems.
The Western Wood Preservers Institute and the Canadian
Institute of Treated Wood recently published a guide for
using treated wood in aquatic environments (WWPI 1996).
2
Creosote Preservative
A comprehensive resource on wood preservatives including
information on creosote is presented in Cassens and others
(1995).
Recent efforts (Crawford and others 2000) are focusing on a
cleaner creosote, referred to as pigment-emulsified creosote,
leading to treated products with cleaner surfaces that are less
likely to bleed in service.
Objective and Scope
The objective of this preliminary study was to assess the in-
service retention of creosote in several timber highway
bridge superstructures. A review of available information
regarding initial preservative treatment conditions was also
conducted for each timber bridge.
The assessment involved the removal of several boring
samples at each bridge site and a laboratory analysis using
assay test methods. A total of six timber bridges located in
Michigan’s lower peninsula were included in this study
(Table 1) based upon the recommendation of the Michigan
Timber Bridge Committee. Four of the six bridges were
classified as “bleeder” bridges due to creosote visibly bleed-
ing from the bridge superstructure. Two of the six bridges
were classified as control bridges due to very limited creo-
sote bleeding and dry surface conditions. The age of the
bridges varied from 1 year (La Chance and Houlihan) to
10 years. Five of the six bridges were constructed with
glued-laminated (glulam) timber components. Two of the
bleeder bridges and both of the control bridges were made
with red pine lumber or glulam components for the super-
structure. Other species used in the bridge superstructures
included Douglas-fir, southern pine, and pin oak.
Except for the La Chance bridge, all the bridges had a stress-
laminated deck configuration. However, the deck truss mem-
bers at the La Chance bridge were transversely post-
tensioned in a similar fashion to stress-laminating. The
general configuration of stress-laminated decks is shown in
Figure 1. For stress-laminated bridges, high strength steel
bars are inserted through prebored holes, and when tension
is applied to these bars, the wood laminations are com-
pressed together to form the deck superstructure. The treated
wood laminations, whether sawn lumber or glulam, typically
undergo compression stresses in the range of 100 to
120 lb/in2 (1.6 to 1.9 g/m3) during initial bar tensioning at
construction and in the range of 50 to 80 lb/in2 (0.8 to
1.3 g/m3) during typical service conditions.
 Table 1—Creosote-treated bridge sites investigated in Michigan’s lower peninsula
Super-
Year structure
County Bridge name Superstructure type built materials Wood species
Bleeder bridges
Douglas-fir (truss)
Missaukee La Chance Deck trussa 1998 Glulam
Red pine (deck)
Alcona Cruzen Stress-laminated deck 1995 Glulam Red pine
Stress-laminate box- Glulam and So. pine glulam (web)
Crawford Cameron 1995
section sawn lumber Pin oak sawn (flange)
Saginaw Houlihanb Stress-laminated deck 1999 Glulam So. pine

Control bridges

Alcona Barlow Stress-laminated deck 1997 Glulam Red pine

Otsego Old Vanderbilt Stress-laminated deck 1989 Sawn lumber Red pine

a
Truss members are also compressed together at diaphragms with high strength tension bars similar to stress-laminated decks.
b
Owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and located within the Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge.

Methods superstructure with an electrical-resistance type meter

Fieldwork was conducted during the summer of 2000 and
included visual inspections, core sampling, and moisture
content readings from the bridge superstructure components.
Work was completed at the La Chance, Cruzen, Barlow, and
Houlihan bridge sites in July and at the Cameron and Old
Vanderbilt bridge sites in September.
Visual inspections focused on the condition of the treated
wood components and photographic documentation of the
preservative surface residues or any evidence of preservative
bleeding. Also, the general condition of the asphalt wearing
surface was assessed. Visual inspections followed previously
established field procedures for inspecting stress-laminated
bridges in service (Ritter and others 1995b).
Core samples were removed from creosote-treated members
located in the superstructure of each bridge. Each core was
removed from the bridge using a ⅜-in.- (9.5-mm-) diameter
increment borer in combination with a hand drill (Fig. 2).
Bridge drawings with approximate locations of the core
samples are included in the Appendix. At each core sample
location, three cores (approximately 2 to 3 in. (50.8 to
76.2 mm) long) were removed from the same deck lamina-
tion (or truss member) and combined into a glass specimen
vial during transit. Treated hardwood dowel plugs were
hammered into the sample holes. Core sampling procedures
followed the American Wood-Preservers’ Association
Standard M2 (AWPA 2000a).
Moisture content data were collected from four bridges
at various locations on the underside of the bridge
(model RC–1D, Delmhorst Instrument Company, Towaco,
New Jersey) and 3-in.- (76.2-mm-) long insulated pin
probes. Raw readings were typically collected at 1-, 2-, and
3-in. (25.4-, 50.8-, and 76.2-mm) pin probe penetration
depths. Moisture content data collection procedures followed
American Standard for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Standard D4444–92 (ASTM 2000). Temperature and wood
species corrections to raw field readings were performed as
required (Pfaff and Garrahan 1984).
Laboratory Methods
Laboratory evaluations of the core samples removed from
the bridges were conducted at FPL shortly after fieldwork
was completed. Each of the core samples was trimmed in
length (maximum of 1 in. (25.4 mm) for sawn lumber and
0.6 in. (15.2 mm) for glulam) to isolate the outer (exposed)
end for laboratory testing. Laboratory tests to measure the
creosote content in the trimmed core samples were con-
ducted in accordance with AWPA Standard A6 (AWPA
1997).
Review of Available Treatment
Information
All available information regarding the initial treatment
conditions of the bridge superstructure wood components
was requested from the various bridge owners. This informa-
tion was reviewed to possibly determine the root cause for
the preservative bleeding from the bridges.

3

Figure 1—General configuration of a stress-laminated
deck bridge superstructure.
Figure 2—Removal of core samples from the
La Chance bridge using an increment borer and
hand drill.
4
Results and Discussion
Visual Inspections
The bridge site with the most visibly active creosote bleed-
ing was La Chance bridge superstructure in Missaukee
County (Fig. 3). The La Chance bridge deck members (red
pine glulam) seemed to be the primary source of creosote
preservative bleeding, with additional residue from the
asphalt paving membrane also present. The underlying truss
members at La Chance did not seem to be actively bleeding
but were extensively coated on the top sides with creosote
“crud” from the deck above.
Creosote bleeding was extensive on the deck underside and
along the edge beams at the Cruzen bridge superstructure in
Alcona County (Fig. 4). The glulam (web) beams were
actively bleeding at the bridge underside and along the edge
beams at the Cameron bridge superstructure in Crawford
County (Fig. 5). Several of the glulam beams in the middle
span appeared to have an oily residue on the deck underside
of the Houlihan bridge superstructure within the Shiawassee
National Wildlife Refuge (Fig. 6). The control bridges,
Barlow in Alcona County (Fig. 7) and Old Vanderbilt in
Otsego County (Fig. 8), had minimal amounts of creosote
crud on the exposed wood members and were not visibly
bleeding.
At the Cruzen and Cameron sites, the creosote wood pre-
servative appeared to have migrated upward through the
asphalt wearing surface (Fig. 9). At the Cameron bridge, the
creosote wood preservative migrated into the asphalt wear-
ing surface only at the glulam web locations. This is espe-
cially apparent in the summer months and has caused con-
cerns about vehicle traction. At the La Chance bridge, there
were no visible signs of preservative migration (Fig. 10).
However, a waterproof paving membrane had been used that
was not compatible with the creosote wood preservative or
the asphalt mixture, causing the membrane to liquefy when
the hot-mix asphalt was applied. The resulting pavement
membrane residue was observed leaking through the trans-
verse deck at the panel butt-joints. Similar problems with
creosote wood preservatives and pavement membranes have
also been reported (Eriksson 2002, Eriksson and others
2003). Future studies should examine this interaction be-
tween creosote preservatives, paving membranes, and the
asphalt pavement layer.
Moisture Content
A summary of the moisture content data is presented in
Table 2. The moisture content values ranged between 12 and
30%, with a few noted exceptions. At most locations, the 2-
and 3-in.- (50.8- and 76.2-mm-) deep moisture content
values were slightly higher than the 1-in.- (25.4-mm-) deep
values. For glulam components in Michigan’s climate, we
typically expect relatively low (less than 15%) moisture
Figure 3—La Chance bridge in Missaukee County. Figure 6—Houlihan bridge in Shiawassee National
Wildlife Refuge.

Figure 4—Cruzen bridge in Alcona County. Figure 7—Barlow bridge in Alcona County.

Figure 5—Cameron bridge in Crawford County.

Figure 8—Old Vanderbilt bridge in Otsego County.

5

Figure 9—Creosote preservative visibly migrating
upward through the asphalt wearing surface at the
(a) Cruzen and (b) Cameron bridges.
Figure 10—The La Chance bridge showing the asphalt
wearing surface condition.
content shortly after installation with gradual increases
during service life. The moisture content values for the
glulam bridge superstructures at Cruzen, Cameron (web
only), and Barlow were generally below 20% as expected.
6
For sawn lumber components in Michigan’s climate, we
typically expect somewhat higher (more than 20%) moisture
content near installation with gradual decreases during ser-
vice life. And the moisture content values for the sawn lum-
ber bridge superstructures at Cameron (flange only) and Old
Vanderbilt were all above 19% as expected. The moisture
content values near and above fiber saturation for the lam 6
and lam 81 locations (Table 2) at Old Vanderbilt bridge are
attributed to their proximity to the curb and scupper zone
where moisture typically accumulates near the bridge deck
edges. Most of the measured moisture contents were near the
expected long-term equilibrium value of approximately 18%
to 20% for timber bridges in the northern United States
(McCutcheon and others 1986).
Core Sampling for Creosote Retention
Table 3 presents a summary of the measured creosote reten-
tion levels for each bridge. The Appendix gives additional
information and specific locations of core samples.
The highest creosote retention level, 52.2 lb/ft3
(836.2 kg/m3), was measured at the Cruzen bridge. The
creosote retention levels at the La Chance, Barlow, and
Houlihan bridges were within the range of 35 to 46 lb/ft3
(560.7 to 736.9 kg/m3). The creosote retention levels at the
Cameron bridge were 5.1 lb/ft3 (81.7 kg/m3) (sawn lumber
flanges) and 12.5 lb/ft3 (200.2 kg/m3) (glulam webs), and at
the Old Vanderbilt bridge, it was 13.3 lb/ft3 (213 kg/m3).
The very low retention of the lumber flanges at the Cameron
bridge may reflect the low permeability of the pin oak spe-
cies. In general, most glulam members had significantly
higher creosote preservative retention levels than the mini-
mum required AWPA (C28) preservative retention level.
The exception to this trend was the Cameron bridge (glulam
webs) with 12.5 lb/ft3 (200.2 kg/m3) creosote retention. The
46.2-lb/ft3 (740.1-kg/m3) creosote retention level at the
Barlow (control) bridge was somewhat confusing because
there was very little visible creosote preservative bleeding
and the superstructure components were post-treatment
cleaned.
These results may indicate that some glulam bridge compo-
nents are not being pressure-treated to the lower target reten-
tion levels (AWPA C28) and that some treating facilities
may not follow (AWPA M20) guidelines for minimizing oil-
type wood preservative migration. Glulam members are
more susceptible to high preservative retention levels during
pressure treatment because of the low moisture content
required during the adhesive bonding fabrication process and
the higher percentage of sapwood compared with that in
sawn lumber. Therefore, post-treatment processes for glulam
components, including steam cleaning and a final vacuum,
need more emphasis in highway bridge related codes and
standards. Standard specifications for treated timber bridges
included in the American Association of State Highway
Table 2—Summary of moisture content measurements from bridge superstructuresa

Moisture content (%) at pin penetrationc

Bridge name Location of readingb 1 in. (25.4 mm) 2 in. (50.8 mm) 3 in. (76.2 mm)
Beam 1 17 16 19
Cruzen
Beam 2 13 15 19

Cameron Web beam 1 15 18 20

Flange 2 28 33 31
Web beam 3 20 20 21

Barlow Beam 3 12 15 18
Beam 5 13 14 15

Old Vanderbilt Lam 6 19 42 42

Lam 28 19 20 21
Lam 46 19 20 21
Lam 64 21 23 23
Lam 81 25 28 27
a
Two bridges, La Chance and Houlihan, did not have moisture content measurements taken.
b
Beam or lamination (lam) numbering starts at upstream edge of superstructure.
c
Shaded moisture content values are out of reliable range of values.

Table 3—Creosote retention levels based on laboratory analysis of core samples

removed from bridges
Average creosote
No. of samples retentionb Coefficient of
a
Bridge name and location (lb/ft3 (kg/m3)) variation (%)
Bleeder bridges
La Chance 8 from glulam deck 35.8 (573.5) 9.0
12 from glulam truss 37.3 (597.5) 8.2
Cruzen 12 from glulam deck 52.2 (836.2) 14.5
Cameron 8 from lumber flange 5.1 (81.7) 41.2
9 from glulam web 12.5 (200.2) 50.3
Houlihan 4 from glulam deck 41.1 (658.4) 7.8
Control bridges
Barlow 7 from glulam deck 46.2 (740.1) 25.2
Old Vanderbilt 5 from lumber deck 13.3 (213.1) 16.3
a
See Figures 11 to 16 in Appendix for approximate locations.
b
Three separate cores were removed at each sampling location and combined
for laboratory analysis.

7
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) may need to be revised
(AASHTO 2002). Additional studies may be needed to
optimize treatment specifications for glulam components
made from alternative species. These specifications would
be complementary to those already included in AWPA C28.
Lastly, the high compressive stress continually applied to the
deck laminations in a stress-laminated bridge (five of the six
bridges are stress-laminated) may have contributed to the
creosote bleeding problems. More bleeding was noticeable at
the lamination interfaces and may indicate a compression-
related problem. Additional studies are needed to determine
if the compressive stresses are magnifying creosote preserva-
tive bleeding problems.
more detailed information about the initial treatment
processing conditions needs to be routinely recorded in
treatment certificates or contract specifications for timber
highway bridges.
Summary and
Recommendations
In the summer of 2000, six creosote-treated timber bridge
superstructures were visually inspected, sample cores were
removed, and moisture contents were measured in an attempt
to solve several reported cases of excessive creosote bleed-
ing at various bridge sites.

Review of Available Treatment
Information
The limited background information that was available about
the initial treatment processing conditions is summarized in
Table 4. All superstructure wood components were pressure-
treated using an empty cell (rueping) process. To refrain
from using company names, treatment plants were desig-
nated as A, B, and C. Treatment plant B was reported as the
treatment facility for all the glulam components in the bridge
superstructures, with the exception of the La Chance (Doug-
las-fir) truss members, and this may have been a contributing
factor to the creosote preservative bleeding. In the future,
At the four bleeder bridges, both horizontal and vertical
member surfaces were covered with preservative residue, or
crud. Those surfaces with exposure to direct sunlight were
covered with a thick layer of crud.
Residual creosote retention levels ranged between 5.1 and
52.2 lb/ft3 (81.7 and 836.2 kg/m3) with glulam members
having significantly higher amounts than sawn lumber. All
glulam bridge components (except the Douglas-fir glulam
truss members at La Chance) were treated by the same
treatment facility. Further examination of preservative treat-
ment cycles might be useful in preventing a recurrence of
excessive in-service creosote bleeding.

Table 4—Summary of treatment processing conditions for each bridge superstructure

Treatment Pressure and Post-treatment Post-treatment vacuum

Bridge name plant temperature heat/cleaning (gage pressure)

Bleeder bridges
2
La Chance A (truss) 150 lb/in and 212°F None performeda 22 inHg (74.5 MPa)
(1 GPa and 100°C)
150 lb/in2 and 212°F
B (deck) None performed 22 inHg (74.5 MPa)
(1 GPa and 100°C)

Cruzen B Data not providedb Data not provided Data not provided

Cameron Unknown Data not provided Data not provided Data not provided

Houlihan B Data not provided Data not provided Data not provided
Control bridges
Barlow B No pressure listed 2 h at 200°F (93°C) 22 inHg (74.5 MPa) for 5 h
and 203°F (95°C)
Avg.

Old Vanderbilt C Data not provided Data not provided Data not provided

a
Not indicated on treatment certification form.
b
Treatment certification forms not available.

8
Definitive conclusions regarding the significance of the
measured creosote retention levels are difficult because it is
difficult to quantify preservative losses and migration while
in service. Additional field investigations, including moni-
toring of field structures (beginning at installation), are
needed to determine causes for the creosote bleeding.
It is strongly recommended that the information included in
WWPI (1996) and AWPA (2000b) is incorporated into
future editions of the AASHTO standard specifications and
material specifications (AASHTO 2002). Post-treatment
cleaning procedures (vacuum, steam, etc.) may be extremely
important. Revision of AWPA C28 may be warranted to
further optimize the creosote pressure-treatment process with
respect to glulam members made with alternative wood
species.
The effects of high compressive (long-term) stress imposed
on the deck laminations due to stress-laminating needs fur-
ther study to determine if it leads to increased preservative
bleeding.
The interaction between creosote preservatives, paving
membranes, and asphalt wearing surfaces needs further
study to determine causes of membrane disintegration and
creosote preservative migration upward through the asphalt
pavement layer.
Literature Cited
AASHTO. 2002. Standard specification for preservatives
and pressure treatment processes for timber. AASHTO
designation M 133–95 (1999). In: Standard specifications
for transportation materials and methods of sampling and
testing. 22nd ed. Part 1A Specifications. Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
ASTM. 2000. Use and calibration of hand-held moisture
meters. ASTM D 4444–92. Philadelphia, PA: American
Society for Testing and Materials.
AWPA. 1995. Standard P1/P13–95—Standard for creosote
preservative used in land, fresh water, and marine (coastal
water) applications. Granbury, TX: American Wood-
Preservers’ Association.
AWPA. 1997. Standard A6–97—Method for the determina-
tion of oil-type preservatives and water in wood. Granbury,
TX: American Wood-Preservers’ Association.
AWPA. 1999a. Standard C14—Wood for highway con-
struction—Preservative treatment by pressure process. Gran-
bury, TX: American Wood-Preservers’ Association.
AWPA. 1999b. Standard C28—Preservative treatment by
pressure processes of structural glued laminated members
and laminations before gluing. Granbury, TX: American
Wood-Preservers’ Association.
AWPA 2000a. Standard M2–00—Standard for inspection of
wood products treated with wood preservatives. Granbury,
TX: American Wood-Preservers’ Association.
AWPA 2000b. Standard M20–00—Guidelines for minimiz-
ing oil-type wood preservative migration. Granbury, TX:
American Wood-Preservers’ Association.
Brooks, K.M. 2000. Assessment of the environmental ef-
fects associated with wooden bridges preserved with creo-
sote, pentachlorophenol, or chromated copper arsenate. Res.
Pap. FPL–RP–587. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 100 p.
Cassens, D.L.; Feist, W.C.; Johnson, B.R.; DeGroot, R.C.
1995. Selection and use of preservative-treated wood. Publi-
cation No. 7299. Madison, WI: Forest Products Society.
Crawford, D.M.; DeGroot, R.C.; Watkins, J.B. [and
others]. 2000. Treatability of U.S. wood species with pig-
ment-emulsified creosote. Forest Products Journal. 50(1):
29–35.
Eriksson, M.O. 2002. Considerations when paving treated
timber bridge decks. In: Crossings Newsletter, Issue 41.
Morgantown, WV: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry,
National Wood In Transportation Information Center.
Eriksson, M.O.; Kosmalski, S.; Wheeler, H. 2003. Paving
treated timber bridge decks. Publ. 0371–2809–MTDC.
Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Missoula Technology and Development Center.
FPL. 2000. Environmental impact of preservative-treated
wood in a wetland boardwalk. Res. Pap. FPL–RP–582.
Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser-
vice, Forest Products Laboratory. 126 p.
Gjovik, L.R.; Johnson, D.B.; Kozak, V. [and others].
1980. Biologic and economic assessment of pentachlorophe-
nol, inorganic arsenicals, and creosote. Vol. I: Wood pre-
servatives. Tech. Bull. 1658–1. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with State Agri-
cultural Experimental Stations, Cooperative Extension Ser-
vice, other State agencies, and the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Hislop, L.E. 1998. Field performance of timber bridges:
15. Pueblo County 204B Stress-laminated deck bridge. Res.
Pap. FPL–RP–566. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 19 p.
Hislop, L.E.; Ritter, M.A. 1996. Field performance of
timber bridges: 7. Connell lake stress-laminated deck bridge.
Res. Pap. FPL–RP–550. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory.
13 p.
9
Kainz, J.A. 1998. Field performance of timber bridges: 16.
North siwel road stress-laminated T-beam bridge. Res. Pap.
FPL–RP–570. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 17 p.
Kainz, J.A.; Wacker, J.P.; Nelson, M. 1996. Field per-
formance of timber bridges: 9. Big Erik's stress-laminated
deck bridge. Res. Pap. FPL–RP–552. Madison, WI: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products
Laboratory. 24 p.
Kainz, J.A.; Wacker, J.P.; Ritter, M.A.; Bishop, S. 2001.
Field performance of timber bridges: 21. Humphrey stress-
laminated T-beam bridge. Res. Pap. FPL–RP–597. Madison,
WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest
Products Laboratory. 16 p.
Lebow, S.T.; Tippie, M. 2001. Guide for minimizing the
effect of preservative-treated wood on sensitive environ-
ments. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL–GTR–122. Madison, WI: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products
Laboratory. 18 p.
Lee, P.D.H.; Ritter, M.A.; Golston, S.; Hinds, K. 1997.
Field performance of timber bridges: 14. Dean, Hibbsville,
and Decatur stress-laminated bridges. Res. Pap. FPL–RP–
564. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 21 p.
McCutcheon, W.J.; Gutkowski, R.; Moody, R.C. 1986.
Performance and rehabilitation of timber bridges. p. 65–69.
In: Trans. Res. Rec. 1053. Washington, DC: National Acad-
emy of Sciences, National Research Council, Transportation
Research Board.
Michigan-DNR. 1995. Manufacturing and marketing oppor-
tunities for modern timber bridges in Michigan, special
project. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Natural
Resources.
Pfaff, P.; Garrahan, P. 1984. Moisture content correction
tables for the resistance-type moisture meter: Eastern spe-
cies. SP511E. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: FORINTEK Corpo-
ration.
Pilon, J. 2002. Best management practices for the use of
preservative-treated wood in aquatic environments in Michi-
gan. Roscommon, MI: Michigan Department of Natural
Resources.
Ritter, M.A. 1992. Timber bridges: Design, construction,
inspection, and maintenance. EM7700–8. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Ritter, M.A.; Wacker, J.P.; Tice, E. 1995a. Field perform-
ance of timber bridges: 2. Cooper creek stress-laminated
deck bridge. Res. Pap. FPL–RP–536. Madison, WI: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products
Laboratory. 17 p.
10
Ritter, M.A.; Wacker, J.P.; Duwadi, S.R. 1995b. Field
performance of stress-laminated timber bridges on low-
volume roads. In: Proceedings of the 6th International con-
ference on low-volume roads; 1995 June 25–29; Minneapo-
lis, MN. Washington, DC: National Academy Press:
Vol. 2: 347–356.
Ritter, M.A.; Kainz, J.A.; Porter, G. 1996a. Field per-
formance of timber bridges: 5. Little salmon creek stress-
laminated deck bridge. Res. Pap. FPL–RP–547. Madison,
WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest
Products Laboratory. 14 p.
Ritter, M.A.; Hilbrich Lee, P.D.; Porter, G.J. 1996b.
Field performance of timber bridges: 6. Hoffman run stress-
laminated deck bridge. Res. Pap. FPL–RP–549. Madison,
WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest
Products Laboratory. 16 p.
Wacker, J.P.; Ritter, M.A. 1995. Field performance of
timber bridges: 3. Birchlog run and tumbling rock run stress-
laminated deck bridge. Res. Pap. FPL–RP–538. Madison,
WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest
Products Laboratory. 11 p.
Wacker, J.P.; Ritter, M.A.; Stanfill–McMillan, K. [and
others]. 1997. Field performance of timber bridges: 11.
Spearfish Creek stress-laminated box-beam bridge. Res. Pap.
FPL–RP–556. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 17 p.
Wacker, J.P.; Catherman, S.C.; Winnett, R.G. 1998a.
Field performance of timber bridges: 12. Christian Hollow
stress-laminated box-beam bridge. Res. Pap. FPL–RP–560.
Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser-
vice, Forest Products Laboratory. 17 p.
Wacker, J.P.; Kainz, J.A.; Ritter, M.A. 1998b. Field
performance of timber bridges: 17. Ciphers stress-laminated
deck bridge. Res. Pap. FPL–RP–572. Madison, WI: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products
Laboratory. 16 p.
Webb, D.A. 1976. Environmental considerations on creo-
sote: A step in the right direction. Pittsburg, PA: Koppers
Company, Inc.
Webb, D.A.; Gjovik, L.R. 1988. Treated wood products,
their effect on the environment. Proceedings of the 1988
AWPA annual meeting. Granbury, TX: American Wood-
Preservers’ Association: 254–259.
WWPI. 1996. Best management practices for the use of
treated wood in aquatic environments. Vancouver, WA:
Western Wood Preservers Institute. 35 p.
Appendix
La Chance Bridge Inspection Report
Inspection Date: July 11, 2000
Bridge Location: Missaukee County, MI (Lake Township)
Stream Crossing: Clam River
Years of service: 2
Bridge Dimensions: One span, 79 ft (24.1 m) long, 33 ft
(10.1 m) wide, two lanes
Superstructure Type: Deck truss (truss members: glulam
Douglas-fir, deck members: glulam red pine)
Wearing Surface Type:
Pavement: Asphalt
Membrane: MEL-DEC brand waterproof
Comments: The deck members were actively bleeding creo-
sote and covering the truss members. A temporary collection
platform to prevent the creosote from entering the waterway
was constructed by the county. The rubberized asphalt pav-
ing membrane appears to have contributed to the problem at
this site. The paving membrane melted when asphalt was
placed on the deck and has since dripped onto the underlying
truss members and into the stream.
Core Samples Taken: Twelve from truss members (taken
from the first truss cell adjacent to the south abutment), eight
from deck members (taken from the underside of the deck
near the south abutment) (Fig. 11).
Cruzen Bridge Inspection Report
Inspection Date: July 12, 2000
Bridge Location: Alcona County, MI (Mikado Township)
Stream Crossing: Roy Creek
Years of service: 5
Bridge Dimensions: One span, 42 ft (12.8 m) long, 32 ft
(9.8 m) wide, two lanes
Superstructure Type: Stress-laminated deck (deck members:
red pine and southern pine glulam)
Wearing Surface Type:
Pavement: Asphalt
Membrane: None
Comments: Active bleeding from the deck members was
visible, and the preservative had migrated upward through
the asphalt layer causing slippery conditions for motorists.
Core Samples Taken: Twelve (taken from the deck under-
side adjacent to the south abutment) (Fig. 12).
Cameron Bridge Inspection Report
Inspection Date: September 19, 2000
Bridge Location: Crawford County, MI (Frederic Township)
Stream Crossing: Manistee River
Years or service: 5
Bridge Dimensions: Two spans, 86 ft (26.2 m) long, 32 ft
(9.8 m) wide, two lanes
Superstructure Type: Stress-laminated box section (web
members: glulam southern pine beams, flange members:
northern pin oak sawn lumber)
Wearing Surface Type:
Pavement: Asphalt
Membrane: Preformed waterproof
Comments: Active bleeding was visible on the (southern
pine) glulam webs but not so apparent at the sawn lumber
flanges (pin oak). Also preservative migration was observed
from web members into the overlying asphalt layer and was
visible topside.
Core Samples Taken: Nine from web members, eight from
flange members (taken from the superstructure underside
about 10 ft (3.1 m) from the west abutment) (Fig. 13).
Houlihan Bridge Inspection Report
Inspection Date: September 20, 2000
Bridge Location: Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge,
Saginaw County, MI
Stream Crossing: Birch Run Drain
Years of service: 1
Bridge Dimensions: Three spans (32, 45, and 32 ft (9.8,
13.7, and 9.8 m) long), 26 ft (7.9 m) wide, two lanes
Superstructure Type: Stress-laminated deck (deck members:
glulam red pine)
Wearing Surface Type:
Pavement: Timber plank
Membrane: None
Comments: Bleeding of creosote at several glulam deck
beams (at the middle span only) into the sensitive waterways
of the national wildlife refuge was of concern because of
stagnant water conditions under the bridge.
Core Samples Taken: Four (taken at topside of middle span
only) (Fig. 14).
11
Barlow Bridge Inspection Report
Inspection Date: July 12, 2000
Bridge Location: Alcona County, MI (Harrisville/Guston
Township)
Stream Crossing: Van Etten Creek
Years of service: 3
Bridge Dimensions: One span, 36 ft (11 m) long, 28 ft
(8.5 m) wide, two lanes
Superstructure Type: Stress-laminated deck (deck members:
glulam red pine/southern pine)
Wearing Surface Type:
Pavement: Asphalt
Membrane: unknown
Comments: No active bleeding observed at this site. Only
minor staining visible on the riprap near the abutments.

Core Samples Taken: seven (taken from deck underside near

midspan) (Fig. 15).

Old Vanderbilt Bridge Inspection

Report
Inspection Date: September 19, 2000
Bridge Location: Otsego County, MI (Corwith Township)
Stream Crossing: Sturgeon River
Years of service: 11
Bridge Dimensions: two spans, 40 ft (12.2 m) long, 26 ft
(7.9 m) wide, two lanes
Superstructure Type: Stress-laminated deck (deck members:
red pine dimension lumber)
Wearing Surface Type:
Pavement: Asphalt
Membrane: None
Comments: Wood members appeared dry with no surface
residues.
Core Samples Taken: five (taken from the deck underside of
the southernmost span, near centerspan) (Fig. 16).

12
Figure 11—Core sample locations for the La Chance bridge (Missaukee County).

13
 Figure 12—Core sample locations for the Cruzen bridge (Alcona County).

14
Figure 13—Core sample locations for the Cameron bridge (Crawford County).

15
 Figure 14—Core sample locations for the Houlihan bridge (Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge).

Figure 15—Core sample locations for the Barlow bridge (Alcona County).

16
Figure 16—Core sample locations for the Old Vanderbilt bridge (Otsego County).

17